STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 01-1130
)
PATRICIA A. YOUNG, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case in Miami, Florida, on June 14, 2001, before Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Parrish of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132 For Respondent: (No appearance)
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment on the grounds stated in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 14, 2001, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida ("School Board") acted to suspend and to initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent. Respondent filed a timely request for hearing and the matter was promptly referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing.
The School Board furnished its Notice of Specific Charges to Respondent on April 17, 2001. The essence of the charges in that document are that Respondent is guilty of excessive absenteeism, unauthorized absences, neglect of duty, gross insubordination, incompetency, conduct unbecoming of a School Board employee, and violence in the workplace.
A final hearing was held on June 14, 2001, at which time the School Board appeared through counsel and presented evidence in support of its charges. There was no appearance at the hearing by or on behalf of Respondent. At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of six witnesses and offered 48 exhibits, all of which were received in evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed until August 3, 2001, within which to file proposed recommended orders. The School Board timely filed a proposed recommended order.1 Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Respondent has been employed by Petitioner since 1995.
At all time material hereto, Respondent was a data input specialist at Miami Carol City Adult Education Center (Carol City), Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick), Petitioner's Office of Exceptional Student Education and Psychological Services (ESE Office), or assigned to a paid alternative placement at her residence.
Miami Carol City Adult Education Center
Respondent began part-time work at Carol City around 1995. Her work was satisfactory at first. Once she began full- time employment, her work declined.
The work hours at Carol City are 2:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m., Mondays through Thursdays, and 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., on Fridays.
From July 1996 through June 1997, Respondent had a pattern of absences that adversely impacted the education and work environment, particularly the effective operation of Carol City's office. Respondent had been absent for 44 days, six of which were unauthorized leave without pay.
On May 21, 1997, Respondent was directed to comply with work requests from her assistant principal and was warned that failure to do so was insubordination. On June 12, 1997, Respondent was directed to arrive at work on time. On June 13, 1997, Respondent, along with staff, was directed to follow sign in/out procedures. On June 24, 1997, Respondent was referred to Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Respondent refused to sign the referral document.
On June 25, 1997, Respondent was given the following directives: (1) communicate intent to be absent or tardy directly to the principal or designee; and (2) document absences for illness with a written medical note from Respondent's treating physician, presented to the principal or designee. Respondent was warned that future absences would be reported as unauthorized leave without pay until Respondent provided the required documentation and that non-compliance with these directives would be considered a violation of Respondent's professional responsibilities.
On June 26, 1997, Respondent refused to work on a priority work assignment as directed by her assistant principal. Further, Respondent typed a non-work related memo during work hours. Respondent failed to comply with the principal's directives to stop and not xerox it.
In addition, Respondent took a half-day off without obtaining permission from her principal.
On June 27, 1997, Carol City's registrar complained that Respondent refused to do what the register asked her to do.
On June 30, 1997, Respondent removed folders from the assistant principal's desk without permission.
On July 2, 1997, Respondent was typing non-work related material during work hours. Respondent was directed not to do this.
On July 7, 1997, Respondent again did non-work related activity, taking down the principal's conversation with another worker, during work hours.
On July 11, 1997 a Conference-for-the-Record (CFR) was held with Respondent to address Respondent's insubordination, excessive tardiness, and absences, off-task time, and her failure to follow office procedures, directives, and the chain of command, including, but not limited to dates on or about
May 21, 1997 through July 7, 1997.
At the July 11, 1997, CFR, Respondent was given the following directives: (1) not to leave school without written permission from the principal; (2) when told to do something, Respondent was to do it whether or not she agreed with it. If she felt the directive violated her contract, rather than her personal beliefs, she was to file a grievance with the union;
(3) comply with the requests and directions of the assistant principal, whether or not she agreed; (4) take direction from the registrar and complete the work that the registrar asked her to do; (5) use work hours for work tasks, not personal tasks;
(6) not go to anyone's desk or touch or read anyone's paper without prior permission; (7) follow office procedures for telephone calls; and (8) comply with the directives given by memorandum of June 25, 1997. (Paragraph 7 above)
At the July 11, 1997, CFR, Respondent was warned that if she continued to fail to follow directives and established procedures, further disciplinary action would be warranted.
On May 18, 1998, Respondent, along with staff, was reminded to follow sign in/out procedures.
On August 20, 1998, Respondent arrived late to work.
On September 2, 1998, the meal schedule was distributed to Respondent, along with staff.
On September 3, 1998, Respondent arrived late to work.
On September 9, 1998, Respondent left work without authorization from the principal. Respondent failed to sign in and out.
On September 14, 1998, Respondent was directed not to leave school without prior approval and to bring the original note from the doctor.
On September 17, 1998, Respondent left work without permission from an administrator.
On September 18, 1998, Respondent did not adhere to the school's meal schedule and failed to sign out when she departed. Respondent was directed to comply with school site schedules and procedures.
On September 29 and 30, 1998, Respondent failed to sign in and out at the start and conclusion of her workday.
On October 1, 1998, Respondent was tardy. She was directed to follow the previous directives as to signing in and out.
On October 5 and 6, 1998, Respondent was late to work.
On October 16, 1998, Respondent left work early without prior approval.
On October 20, 1998, Respondent engaged in unprofessional, loud conduct and refused to sign her leave card.
On October 23, 1998, Respondent was late to work.
Respondent ended her workday early and engaged in a personal phone call. Respondent was directed to arrive on time, depart, and return from meals on time, and to remain on task at the worksite during her scheduled work hours.
On October 30, 1998, Respondent behaved in an unprofessional manner, shouting and screaming loudly at her principal.
On November 2, 1998, Respondent was late to work and failed to sign in and out.
On November 19, 1998, Respondent was engaged in an off-task telephone conversation. She was not using established procedures as to maintaining attendance rosters in individual folders. Respondent was defiant in her assistant principal.
Further, Respondent screamed at her principal, displaying unprofessional behavior. Respondent was warned that any similar outburst would be addressed by disciplinary action.
On November 20, 1998, Respondent again engaged in a personal phone call, for approximately 20 minutes of her work time.
On November 23, 1998, Respondent was not using the established procedures for attendance reports.
On November 24, 1998, Respondent was late to work.
On November 25, 1998, Respondent was late to work and returned late after dinner.
On November 30, 1998, Respondent took vacation leave without approval.
On December 1, 1998, Respondent did not follow the meal schedule.
On December 3, 1998, Respondent was directed to report to a CFR on December 9, 1998. Respondent refused to attend.
She was also referred to Petitioner's EAP due to excessive
tardiness, prolonged lunch hours, and frequent trips to the restroom. Respondent refused to sign the referral document. She also received her evaluation which was unsatisfactory in efficiency, attendance, and punctuality, and adherence to rules and procedures. Respondent was placed on a prescription for performance improvement.
On December 9, 1998, Respondent was directed to report to a CFR on December 11, 1998. Respondent refused to sign for receipt of the notice. Respondent said she could not attend at the scheduled time.
On December 11, 1998, Respondent was directed to report to a rescheduled CFR on December 15, 1998.
On December 15, 1998, a CFR was held with Respondent to address her unsatisfactory evaluation. The conferees discussed Respondent's deficiencies from August 1998 through December 1998.
At the December 15, 1998, CFR, Respondent was given directives to: (1) be on time, be in her work area during scheduled work hours and to depart for and return from meals according to the published schedule; (2) limit conversations to business and conduct each business call within two to three minutes; (3) maintain attendance rosters in accordance with established procedures; (4) cease insubordination towards any administrator and follow all directions given by a principal or
assistant principal; and (5) not to leave the worksite without written authorization from her principal or assistant principal. Further, Respondent was advised that performance and attendance are requirements of her job. At the December 15, 1998, CFR, Respondent was placed on a prescription for performance
improvement.
Robert Renick Education Center
On January 26, 1999, Respondent transferred to the Robert Renick Education Center.
On November 29, 1999, Respondent was warned in writing that her frequent tardiness was impeding the operations of her work site. She was warned that if her tardiness continued, further disciplinary action would be taken. Respondent did not show improvement after receiving the memorandum.
From July 1999 through April 2000, Respondent accumulated approximately 29 days of absences.
On April 25, 2000, Respondent received a directive to report to a CFR on April 28, 2000, to address her attendance, tardiness, declining work and future work status, inter alia. After Respondent was given the notice, she returned to the principal's office and exhibited erratic, impulsive behavior with minimal anger control, resulting in an altercation with her principal and assistant principal over an envelope. Respondent
had reached over the principal and under her desk to grab the envelope. She was yelling, "I knew you had it. It's mine." Respondent thought the envelope contained some of her personnel records that had been expunged, but it did not. There was a tug-of-war over the envelope and Respondent held on to it,
refusing to return it. The police were called and they escorted Respondent out of the building. As a result, a preliminary investigation was requested and Respondent's principal requested an alternative worksite for her. On April 26, 2000, Respondent's principal postponed the April 28th CFR pending the investigation of the incident that occurred the previous day.
On April 27, 2000, Respondent was referred to Petitioner's EAP for excessive absences, excessive tardiness, prolonged lunch hours, marked changes in mood and activity level, altercations with staff, and poor judgment. Respondent did not participate.
Office of Exceptional Student Education And Psychological Services (ESE Office)
On April 27, 2000, Respondent was reassigned to the ESE Office as her alternative work site. Respondent was given directives concerning her hours of work, sign-in procedures, duties, and absences. She was supervised by Ms. Ball. She did not report to her work site until May 18, 2000.
On August 3, 2000, Respondent was advised that her
67.5 absences from the work site, 22 of which were unauthorized leave without pay, between July 20, 1999, and July 18, 2000, were adversely impacting the work environment. Respondent was directed to: (1) be in regular attendance and on time; (2) communicate intent to be absent directly to her supervisor or designee; (3) document absences for illness with a medical note from Respondent's treating physician, presented to her supervisor or designee; (4) upon return to the work site, provide an unconditional medical release to return to full duties; and (5) if future absences are imminent, Respondent was directed to request leave and implement School Board procedures for approved leave. Respondent was warned that future absences would be reported as unauthorized leave until the required documentation was presented and that non-compliance with these directives would be considered a violation of her professional responsibilities. Nevertheless, Respondent did not improve her attendance or follow the directives.
On August 29, 2000, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's attendance, performance, and future employment status. Between August 2, 1999, and August 17, 2000, Respondent had been absent 75.5 days, 27.5 of which were unauthorized leave without pay.
During the August 29, 2000, CFR, Respondent was directed to: (1) be in regular attendance and on time; (2) communicate intent to be absent to her supervisor or designee;
(3) document absences for illness with a medical note from Respondent's treating physician, presented to her supervisor or designee; (4) upon return to work site, provide an unconditional medical release to full duties; and (5) if future absences are imminent, Respondent was to request leave and implement School Board procedures for approved leave. Respondent was warned that future absences would be reported as unauthorized leave until the required documentation was presented and that non-compliance with these directives would be considered a violation of her professional responsibilities. Further, Respondent was reminded that unauthorized absences for three (3) consecutive workdays are evidence of abandonment of position and that unauthorized absences totaling ten (10) or more workdays during the previous twelve-month period are evidence of excessive absenteeism, which could result in future disciplinary action, including termination of employment. Nevertheless, there was no improvement after the CFR.
On August 31, 2000, Respondent was again referred to Petitioner's EAP for excessive absences and tardiness, unauthorized absences, marked changes in mood, and assignment
failures. Respondent refused to sign the referral document and declined to participate in the EAP.
On October 24, 2000, a CFR was held with Respondent to discuss her inefficiency related to her work assignments, her attendance record and punctuality, and her future employment status. Between July 20, 1999, and October 20, 2000, Respondent had been absent from work 102 days, 82 of which were unauthorized leave without pay. Respondent's interim evaluation was unsatisfactory in the categories of efficiency and attendance/punctuality. Respondent was placed on a prescription of performance improvement. Her prescriptive activities were to be completed by November 21, 2000.
On October 24, 2000, Respondent was again referred to Petitioner's EAP due to excessive absences and tardiness, absences on Mondays and/or Fridays, changes in personal appearance, marked changes in activity level, and assignment failures. Respondent refused to accept the supervisory referral to the EAP.
There was no improvement after that CFR and Respondent failed to complete her prescription by November 21, 2000, as directed.
On December 8, 2000, Respondent was directed to complete her prescription activities within 24 hours. She was warned that failure to do so would be considered
insubordination. Respondent failed to comply with this directive.
On December 19, 2000, Respondent was directed to attend a CFR on January 4, 2001.
On January 4, 2001, the CFR was held, as scheduled.
Respondent failed to attend the CFR; however, the meeting proceeded in her absence. Since Respondent's last CFR on October 24, 2000, Respondent has been absent an additional 26.5 days out of 44 work days. The purpose of the January 4 conference was to address Respondent's inefficiency related to work assignments, her daily work performance, her difficulty with interpersonal skills with staff members, her lack of dependability in completing assignments, her judgment, her sporadic attendance and punctuality, her non-adherence to office procedures and daily schedules, her 38 personal long-distance phone calls for which she did not reimburse the school district, her failure to complete her prescription, her January 4, 2001, interim evaluation, and to explain the deficiencies resulting in her January 4, 2001, prescription plan.
On January 4, 2001, Respondent's interim evaluation was unsatisfactory in the categories of efficiency, interpersonal skills, dependability and judgment, attendance and punctuality, and adherence to rules and procedures. A
prescription for performance improvement was issued with a completion deadline of January 31, 2001.
On January 8, 2001, a review of the summary of the CFR, Respondent's evaluation, and Respondent's prescription was scheduled but did not take place because Respondent was absent from work.
On January 11, 2001, a meeting was held to review the summary of the CFR, Respondent's evaluation, and Respondent's prescription. Respondent refused to sign to acknowledge receipt of copies of the documents she was given.
On January 17, 2001, Respondent was reminded that her timeline for completion of her prescriptive activities was January 31, 2001, and a meeting to review the summary of the CFR, Respondent's interim evaluation, and Respondent's prescription was re-scheduled for January 18, 2001.
Respondent failed to complete her prescriptive activities by January 31, 2001, as directed.
On February 2, 2001, Respondent was notified that she had failed to comply with her prescriptive activities and had failed to remediate her deficiencies. She was directed to comply with her prescriptive activities within 24 hours and was warned that failure to do so would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent failed to comply with this directive.
On February 2, 2001, Virginia Bradford, executive director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS), directed Respondent to report to a CFR on February 13, 2001.
On February 8, 2001, Respondent called Ms. Bradford and threatened to kill Ms. Bradford, Ms. Ball, and Ms. Ball's supervisor, Mr. Felton.
During the time that Respondent was under Ms. Ball's supervision, she was absent 123 days out of 207 workdays, 94.5 of which were unauthorized. Even when present at work, Respondent frequently did not work the full work day.
On February 9, 2001, Respondent was assigned to a paid alternative placement at her residence and was advised that the CFR scheduled for February 13, 2001, would take place by mail.
On February 13, 2001, a CFR was conducted by mail to address Respondent's performance assessments to date, her non- compliance with site directives regarding attendance and performance, her attendance to date, her violation of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Professional in Florida and professional responsibilities, her violation of the School Board rules concerning responsibilities and duties, a review of her record, and her future employment status. Respondent was advised that since her last CFR, on January 4, 2001, she had been absent an additional twenty-five days, twenty-four of which were
unauthorized leave without pay. Further, since July 5, 1999, Respondent had been absent from work for approximately 177.5 days, 101 of which were recorded as unauthorized leave without pay.
On March 14, 2001, Petitioner took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Since Petitioner seeks to dismiss Respondent as an employee, it must prove the allegations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen
v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568 (3d DCA 1990).
The Notice of Specific Charges (Notice) alleges that Respondent is guilty of excessive absenteeism, unauthorized absences, neglect of duty, gross insubordination, incompetency, and violation of School Board rules pertaining to employee conduct and violence in the workplace.
The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, (P. 48) applicable to Respondent, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
ARTICLE XXI -- EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS
* * *
Section 3. Procedures for Continued Employment of Education Support Personnel
* * *
D. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employees' employment status shall continue from year to year, unless . . . the employee is terminated for just cause. Just cause includes, but is not limited to misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 [F.A.C.]
ARTICLE XVIII -- OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Section 1. Work Schedule
A. The standard number of working hours during any standard work week will be 37-1/2 hours, exclusive of lunch periods. . . .
* * *
F. The use of sign-in and sign-out sheets designating time-in and time-out is authorized for payroll purposes only . . . .
* * *
L. Employees may, with the approval of the work-site administrator, modify their workday schedule (i.e., beginning and ending times adjusted, but not overall daily working hours) . . . .
* * *
Section 19. Employee Absences
An employee shall be deemed to be absent-without-leave whenever he/she is
absent and has not given prior notice to the appropriate administrator or designee that accrued sick or personal leave is to be used or other leave has been appropriately applied for and approved. Any member of the unit who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for
the time of such absence and be subject to dismissal.
An unauthorized absence for three consecutive working days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing may result in disciplinary actions, including termination . . . .
When an employee will be absent from work due to illness or injury or due to personal reasons, he/she shall notify the supervising administrator (or designee) as soon as possible, but no later than one hour before the start of his/her scheduled workday. Where an absent employee does not notify his/her supervising administrator, as stipulated herein, and where there are not extenuating circumstances, as determined by the supervising administrator, such employee will have the option to use personal leave or leave without pay. However, such determination by the supervising administrator shall not be made arbitrarily.
Respondent is guilty of excessive absenteeism, in violation of Article XVIII, Section 19, of the UTD contract, which is just cause for dismissal to Article XXI, Section 3.D.,
of the UTD Contract, and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), and 447.209, Florida Statutes.
Respondent is guilty of unauthorized absences, i.e. absences without leave, in violation of Article XVIII, Section 19, of the UTD Contract, which is just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D, of the UTD Contract and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), and 447.209, Florida Statutes.
State Board rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part, as follows:
Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity . . . based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one (1) or more of the following.
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statues) . . . .
* * *
(4) Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, referenced in State Board Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that Respondent perform duties prescribed by the district school board and that she fulfill the terms of any contract.
The Notice also alleges that Respondent is guilty of violating two School Board rules. The first rule is School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
I. Employee Conduct
All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system.
Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited.
* * *
Based on the facts as found above, Respondent acted in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 on numerous occasions. Failure to comply with School Board Rule 6Gx13A-1.21 constitutes conduct unbecoming a School Board employee which is just cause warranting dismissal pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D, of the UTD Contract, and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), and 447.209, Florida Statutes.
The second rule is School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which provides in pertinent part, as follows:
VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Nothing is more important to [Miami-]Dade County Public Schools [M-]DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on [M-]DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution.
Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on [M-]DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off
[M-]DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. [M-]DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but if not limited to . . . suspension or termination of employment . .
. .
[Miami-]Dade County Public Schools employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated.
Based on the facts found in paragraphs 47 and 67 above, Respondent acted in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13- 4-1.08. Failure to comply with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, constitutes violence in the workplace, which is just cause warranting dismissal pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D, of the UTD Contract and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), 447.209, Florida Statutes.
Due to Respondent's numerous violations of the provisions of her labor contract and School Board rules, she is guilty of incompetency, in violation of SBER 6B4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code, which is just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D, of the UTD Contract and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), and 447.209, Florida Statutes.
As a result of Respondent's numerous failures to obey reasonable directives concerning her attendance, punctuality, prescriptions, and performance, inter alia, given by her
supervisors, she is guilty of gross insubordination, in violation of SBER 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, which is just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D, of the UTD Contract, and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), and 447.209, Florida Statutes.
As a result of Respondent's numerous absences, despite directives on attendance, and her failures to complete work assignments, as directed, she is guilty of neglect of duty, in violation of SBER 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, which is just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D., of the UTD Contract, and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605(2), and 447.209, Florida Statutes.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, issue a final order sustaining the suspension without pay of Patricia A. Young, and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, without back pay, for just cause, including excessive absenteeism, unauthorized absences, neglect of duty, gross insubordination, incompetency, and violation of School Board rules pertaining to employee conduct and violence in the workplace.
DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
MICHAEL M. PARRISH
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2001.
ENDNOTE
1/ The findings of fact and conclusion of law proposed by the School Board are, for the most part, consistent with the conclusions reached by the administrative law judge. Extensive portions of the School Board's proposals have been incorporated into this Recommended Order.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northest Second Avenue, Suite 912
Tallahassee, Florida 323132
Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education
The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Patricia A. Young
5545 Northwest 6th Place Apartment 6
Miami, Florida 33127
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 24, 2001 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 28, 2001 | Recommended Order | Employment of non-instructional employee should be terminated where employee was absent excessively, insubordinate, incompetent, and engaged in violence in the workplace. |
